Mostly true, and if you represented the current U.S. society with a ladder of many rungs representing various levels of wealth there would be occupants on every rung, and constant mobility in both directions. Moving towards Socialism may eliminate occupants from some rungs at the bottom, but to do so it removes most all the rungs in the middle, and very few if any at the top.
Individual So are you agreeing that any unearned advantage is justified; anything anyone gets that has nothing to do with their own merit is justified? Because the problem with that is it seems to go against a lot of what you’ve said and so deeply (if not catastrophically) undermines your philosophy. But a baby doesn’t have a job or a career, they can’t earn and they can’t invest so is it justified for a person born into advantage to retain exclusive rights to advantages they didn’t earn rather than share them with others who through no blame of their own are disadvantaged? In no way have I said that they shouldn’t, I’m just saying that no one can choose who they are going to be born to, so the baby’s can’t be condemned or congratulated for being born into riches or poverty, it can’t even be blame for the decisions of the parents to have it. But by the same token neither can if be commended. A child born into poverty did nothing to deserve the disadvantages associated with it but also the child born into wealth did nothing to deserve the advantages it receives. But you have already argued that government and taxation are needed. Are you saying you only want a government that protects (or increases) those with advantage but doesn’t advantage anyone else?
We'll probably be accused of being naive and that we are being too simplistic, but I think it is as simple as that. There might be variations and the rungs might be spaced further apart depending on which country you are talking about, but generally speaking, I do think it is as simple as that. Obviously the vast majority of people in the US and UK like socialism, so the US and UK can look forward to change...and not be so stagnant.
The graph shows the US at the bottom and the Scandinavian countries at the top, go look at http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence/social-mobility
I’d also recommend the book - The Spirit Level – Why equality is better for everyone by Richard Wilkinson & Kate Pickett to anyone interested in the subject. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Spirit-Level-Societies-Almost-Always/dp/0141032367
"Any unearned advantage" and "Anything anyone gets" is quite broad, so I'll assume only wealth which is inherited coming from a wealthy family to be all you intend, unless you wish to be more specific. That said, I would agree only that it is no less unjustified than it would be justified, it's simply a happenstance. Should justification be a factor in giving something to someone, by anyone other than the benefactor? In what way? I've already said yes, it is justified because it can only be seen as unjustifiable through envious eyes. We have to learn to work with the choices we are presented with throughout life.Why should we even be talking of blame at all? Not sure I understand the context of this, but I commend any and all who take responsibility for their own lives and the lives of their family members. Government and taxation are another subject entirely. As you said earlier, a child has no choice in the family they are born into, therefore who would be considered the "responsible" party for bringing a child into the world? Trying to stay on topic, what advantage is gained by someone living in poverty to have a child?
Individual First, something from earlier in the discussion – * This just seems a variation on you ‘life isn’t fair’ theme (that you are refusing to address elsewhere). So to you even if something isn’t justified its still ok because it’s a ‘happenstance’? Should people not have fought against slavery, child labour etc because although not justified they just happen to exist? Let’s see if it would stand up in court – ‘Look your honour it was just a happenstance, not justified or unjustified and so my client should go free’ Well maybe you should try and think it through…OK…a lot of your argument seems to hinge on people earning the advantages they receive through their own merit. But if it is justified to earn advantages that have not been earned by one’s own merit then…. So injustice is justice – have you ever read 1984, do you know what doublespeak is? And back to court we go – ‘Well your honour it is true my client is unjustly in possession of a million pounds but that could only he seen as unjustified by those who are envious of his good fortune at having a million pounds’ To repeat I’m not portioning blame, you have, but I haven’t, I’m merely asking is it justified for a person born into advantage to retain exclusive rights to advantages they didn’t earn rather than share them with others who through no blame of their own are disadvantaged? You seem to be saying that it is justified that anything anyone gets that has nothing to do with their own merit is justified? But a baby cannot choose who they are going to be born to, so a baby can’t be condemned or congratulated for being born into riches or poverty, it can’t even be blame for the decisions of the parents to have it. You brought up government and taxation not me…you said - To which my reply was - But you have already argued that government and taxation are needed. Are you saying you only want a government that protects (or increases) those with advantage but doesn’t advantage anyone else? Why did you bring the subject up (unbidden by me) when you thought it was “another subject entirely”? So you would blame the child for something they had nothing to do with? So you think it justified to blame the innocent? As I’ve pointed out you brought up the government topic not I, all I’m doing is trying to understand what you said. (Are you saying you have the right to go off topic but no one else, is this another example of your belief that some should have an advantage over others -)? So you would blame the child for something they had nothing to do with? So you think it justified to blame the innocent? Sorry but that doesn’t seem like a good basis for a healthy society.
Something? Are we seeking justification as a necessity in relation to the wealth of the family a child is born to? Do you wish to talk about slavery or child labor instead now? I find slavery and child labor irrelevant in relation to the advantages or disadvantages that exist due to the wealth of the family a child is born to. More and more it appears that you are deeply bothered by what a person does with what he/she earns, especially if it exceeds a limit you feel to be unjust. Is it wrong for parents to try and give their offspring a better start on life than they began with? Have you been attempting to demonstrate doublespeak to me? In that you appear hung up on the words injustice and justice, please provide an example of how the rights of another are being violated in relation to the question you pose. And what law(s) do you find to have been broken? That law? Illegally possessing wealth unearned by ones own merit? More than once I've answered that question, and the answer remains to be "yes". Assuming that "anything" represents what is obtained legally under the law, I would have to continue to answer "yes". That's correct, so where are you heading now? Yes I did, and are you implying that government should be the arbiter of wealth distribution? Then leave it for afterwards and we can attack that question on its own. No. Again, no. Like I said, leave it for later. Once again, no. One more time, no. Am I left to guess what "that" is?
The majority of democrats 53% favor socialism, vast was a stretch. But as a nation we "US" favor capitalism. Gallup Poll
Thanks, those poll results were quite interesting. Have we reached a point of having to choose between Government of the people OR government by the people yet?
Your numbers fall apart because most of the right do not know what Socialism is. One woman at a Tea Party rally said she was anti-Obama because the socialists would take away her Medicare, a very social program. I've been going over Oath Keeper and Tea Party sites for 2 days and these people have no idea what socialism is. The people who listen to the right wing pundits are so confused about politics and social issues they don't have a clue what they're talking about. Any poll at this point is useless. .
Wouldn't "From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution." sum it up? Or do we proceed directly to "From each according to his contribution, to each according to his need."?
I think combining the three is best. "From each according to his ability, for each according to his need, to each according to his want". A minimal amount should be provided for all by all, and that means food, health, and housing. Anything more than that is not necessary to live, but we recognise anyone wanting it should be free to pursue it. I think more people are starting to realise they don't want "more stuff" and pursue immaterial things, and spend their time accordingly. This is bad news for capitalism, which wants people to be 'productive' all the time, whatever that means.
Sounds like perpetual childlike dependency in hopes that an adequate number will aspire to adulthood and take responsibility.
How do you become dependent on food, health and housing? If you don't have those things, you can't put yourself in a position to acquire them. Would you give a job to a homeless or very sick person? No, I didn't think so. Countries which have minimal needs welfare policy have it because they know they are making people more productive, which actually enhances capitalism and economic growth.
Individual I’m just explaining that your argument that - ‘things happen and life is unfair so you just have to live with it’ - is rather weak since it would have be against any change that might improve people’s lives, for example, it would countenance slavery and child labour among other things. To the person born into slavery it would have been – ‘that happens; life is unfair so you’ll just have to live with it’ To the child who was working sixteen hours a day in a dangerous cotton mill it would have been ‘that happens, life is unfair so you’ll just have to live with it’ Just shrugging the shoulders and saying - ‘that’s how things are so they can’t be changed’ - is not an argument that things shouldn’t or can’t be changed. No, which means it must be right to try and give the disadvantaged child the possibility of a better life as well as the advantaged one, since you agree a child cannot choose to be born to an advantaged or disadvantaged family.
A lot of right wing libertarian argument seems to hinge on people earning the advantages they receive through their own merit. But if it is alright to gain an advantage that has not been earned by one’s own merit as has bee argued by Individual then the other argument doesn’t stand. The argument against aiding those that are disadvantaged that ‘life is unfair’ seems rather weak also since that would have countenanced many social practices that are rightly seen as wrong. It has been the call of the conservative throughout history and if heeded would have ended all the social progress of the last 1000 (basically we’d still have the feudal system). And if people who are born into disadvantage are not to blame for that, and helping them by giving them advantages they didn’t personally earn is ok then social programmes aimed at doing just that are ok. So if balanced those with advantage loose little or nothing of their advantage while those that are disadvantage receive the help they need to improve their lives. The thing is that many such programmes exist and people have a legal right to them. But right wing libertarians seem to be against such things wanting to stop their expansion and limit or remove those in place, their argument for wanting this seemly based on the idea that people should only earn advantage through their own merit.
Well I agree with the libertarians on that aspect - people should earn their advantage through their own merit - just not children, the sick, the homeless or the unemployed. And not many countries would consider giving those people an advantage anyway, just enough support to get them on their feet again. Saying this policy would create a 'dependancy culture' is absurd, as if any sane person would want to stay sick, homeless or unemployed when they could have a much better life working and earning money.
You seem to try and paint with a broad brush rather than deal with specifics. I wasn't speaking of slavery or child labor, which are another topic entirely. Instead of trying to deal with anything or everything in one fell swoop, be more specific and then your mind won't be as likely to run wild making assumptions of what you "think" I am saying. Who makes the determination of who is disadvantaged and who is not, and what is the determination based upon? What action are you suggesting be taken as a result of the decision?
So you're saying that if one child is born sightless, should every newborn be blinded to eliminate the unjustified advantage? Intended to be an example of why I ask you to be specific.
